Yeah, it seems to have very good holding power while still not needing crazy force to handle them. I told Sap I'd trade my regular Gamma starting clamp for his Bab one. He's a smart one - he declined... :cry:

Topaz, You are razor sharp! Must be all that studying you've been doing... Yeah I had two season in which the team was first place until the last match (in '09) and sudden death point (in '10) of the season only to get knocked out of playoffs

Click to expand...

Yeah, I believe I remember being there and talking to Auzzie that 2nd year when his singles partner in crime, with the AeroStorm Tour, lost the sudden death point that ended it...

a good read on obamacare i came across couple of days ago. not trying to sway you one way or another but good set of highlights.

What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.

Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.

So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):

Already in effect:

It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)

It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)

It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, [1] PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( [2] Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )

It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( [3] Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )

It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.

It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.

It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( [5] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )

Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.

No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.

Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.

People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.

A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.

A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.

A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.

Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.

8/1/2012

Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.

1/1/2013

If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners.

1/1/2014

This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.

No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.

If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.

Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( [8] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )

Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher.

Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.

Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.

Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.

Cut some Medicare spending

Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.

Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.

Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.

A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.

A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.

A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.

The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.

Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in [9] this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.

1/1/2017

If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).

2018

All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).

A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).

2020

The elimination of the "Medicare gap"

.

Aaaaand that's it right there.

The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.

Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.

Whew! Hope that answers the question!

Edits: Fixing typos.

Edit 2: Wow... people have a lot of questions. I'm afraid I can't get to them now (got to go to work), but I'll try to later.

Edit 3: Okay, I'm at work, so I can't go really in-depth for some of the more complex questions just now, but I'll try and address the simpler ones. Also, a few I'm seeing repeatedly:

For those looking for a source... well, [10] here is the text of the bill, all 974 pages of it (as it sits currently after being amended multiple times). I can't point out page numbers just now, but they're there if you want them.

A lot of people are concerned about the 1/1/2015 bit that says that doctors' pay will be tied to quality, not quantity. Because so many people want to know more about this, I've sought out what I believe to be the pertinent sections (From Page 307, section 3007). It looks like this part alters a part of another bill, the [12] Social Security Act, passed a long while ago. That bill already regulates how doctors' pay is determined. The PPACA just changes the criteria. Judging by how professionals are writing about it, it looks like this is just referring to Medicaid and Medicare. Basically, this is changing how much the government pays to doctors and medical groups, in situations where they are already responsible for pay.

i'm fine with the ACA and i'm pretty happy with Chief Justice Roberts for what was a smart political move in maintaining the legitimacy of the court as an actually independent arbiter as opposed to just voting with the party that nominated you.

basically this decision just drops the actual politics of health care back to the elected branches with a wide berth to work in, which is how it should be. we'll probably see a fair amount of stuff repealed/added in congress.

i'm just glad that the past 2 years of work in my office haven't been a waste of time. we worked a lot with implementing this.

i'm fine with the ACA and i'm pretty happy with Chief Justice Roberts for what was a smart political move in maintaining the legitimacy of the court as an actually independent arbiter as opposed to just voting with the party that nominated you.

basically this decision just drops the actual politics of health care back to the elected branches with a wide berth to work in, which is how it should be. we'll probably see a fair amount of stuff repealed/added in congress.

i'm just glad that the past 2 years of work in my office haven't been a waste of time. we worked a lot with implementing this.

dude, I got an offer to work at the new carrollton metro for IRS. is a nice building there. my job would of been doing process engineering for the healthcare reform act.

Click to expand...

i've actually never been out to that office, i work in exempt organizations and we're anticipating a flood of applications for the new 501(c)(29) tax exempt insurance co-op thing that was upheld today. we've spent the past 2 years writing guidance and procedure for how these are supposed to work but we've never actually had to approve one yet. it's going to be an exciting few months.

i've actually never been out to that office, i work in exempt organizations and we're anticipating a flood of applications for the new 501(c)(29) tax exempt insurance co-op thing that was upheld today. we've spent the past 2 years writing guidance and procedure for how these are supposed to work but we've never actually had to approve one yet. it's going to be an exciting few months.

Click to expand...

tax exempt as in churches? they were in the news not long ago regarding the new healthcare act. congrads on the victory, I think its going to benefit the majority of Americans,

and thanks, i agree with you. as a lawyer there was some interesting jurisprudence going on in this decision and i'm very proud of Roberts for handling it the way he did instead of blowing up the commerce clause, which he had the opportunity to do.

and thanks, i agree with you. as a lawyer there was some interesting jurisprudence going on in this decision and i'm very proud of Roberts for handling it the way he did instead of blowing up the commerce clause, which he had the opportunity to do.

Click to expand...

From what I've read, he didn't blow up the commerce clause, but may have weakened it a bit.

Eff the majority of Americans, how does it benefit me? Poor people get free insurance. Insurance comapnies get more poepel paying them for insurance. Poeple like me will see no change.

Click to expand...

That's sort of the plan right? Not to make waves. With people in a panic about the Gov taking away their healthcare, the law was designed so the if you have coverage, you basically would not see any changes while providing coverage for the uninsured who may not get coverage under medicare or medicaid.

Personally speaking, sections of the law that eliminate restrictions on pre-existing conditions, extending insurance to my daughter past the age of 18 (if needed), requiring that 80% of premiums go towards healthcare instead "admin costs", and increased competition for my healthcare dollars outside of what's offered by my employer could prove beneficial.

no, you will be penalized if you WERE to pick up insurance to seek immediate medical attention. of course you can always just take out your credit card and charge the whole thing yourself. it's like i know my car is going to break down next month so i'm going to buy extended warranty on my engine without paying for the regular warranty beforehand.

I have no insurance. I have tried, several times. Cobra was way too expensive. Any other plan I applied for (which I could afford) denied me for pre-existing conditions. Such as...about 8 years ago I had two moles removed on my back. Nothing was wrong, they were benign, but they irritated me and, since I spend a fair amount of time in the sun, I thought it best to have them removed.

When I applied, I got a phone call, first asking me about the procedure (which I had completely forgotten about) and then practically accusing me of lying about having had skin cancer.

Same company also used my one and only UTI as a reason to deny me coverage. UTIs are VERY VERY VERY common, especially in women. The fact that I've had only one in my life is somewhat of a miracle.

I also have an endocrine disorder for which I take no medication and really have been asymptomatic for about 6 or so years. DENIED.

Do I deserve to have coverage? What do you think Hollywood? Because to me it sounds like you think affordable health care is a bad idea? I'm not a slacker...I work and go to school. Shouldn't I have coverage if something happens to me???

And, before anyone asks, no, NOVA doesn't offer health care to their students, but they recommend a few companies. They thing that is biting me in the arse of course, is pre-existing condition (which thankfully won't be an issue in a few years). A fellow student told me about 'bridge' insurance from Kaiser, but they are no longer accepting applications.

I'm considering Medicaid, but I'm not sure if I will qualify. I've looked into PCIP, as well, but it is kind of pricey for me, too.

That's sort of the plan right? Not to make waves. With people in a panic about the Gov taking away their healthcare, the law was designed so the if you have coverage, you basically would not see any changes while providing coverage for the uninsured who may not get coverage under medicare or medicaid.

Personally speaking, sections of the law that eliminate restrictions on pre-existing conditions, extending insurance to my daughter past the age of 18 (if needed), requiring that 80% of premiums go towards healthcare instead "admin costs", and increased competition for my healthcare dollars outside of what's offered by my employer could prove beneficial.

Topaz, You are razor sharp! Must be all that studying you've been doing... Yeah I had two season in which the team was first place until the last match (in '09) and sudden death point (in '10) of the season only to get knocked out of playoffs

Click to expand...

I remember you talking about it...I think I'm remembering '09? Not sure.

Makes me think twice about playing tri for him. If I do, and the same thing happens, then we'll know we've got a situation on our hands!